***Official*** New Zealand in Zimbabwe and South Africa 2015

[CaptainGrumpy]

Loving how BD and Zim are starting to boss it in their own backyards. Awesome stuff.

Its rare *****, but I absolutely agree with your post. As a NZ fan, I want NZ to win this series in Zimbabwe, but for international cricket, its very good that Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are competitive and capable of beating more highly ranked sides. Last night's win by Zimbabwe will force NZ to treat them with far more respect. That means NZ batters will need to maximise scoring opportunities if Zimbabwe are chasing, and also strengthen the bowling and say play Milne instead of resting him.

I have cheered for Bangladesh so much this year.

 

[Dan]

I think placing all of the blame on Taylor's shoulders is a bit harsh; he goes early, there are big questions whether NZ makes a defendable total. Was is a fantastic innings? No. But did it do more harm than good? No way; 100 off 115 bringing about a slightly sub-par total >>> NZ 230 all-out.

If you can't take more than 3 wickets in 50 overs while defending 300, irrespective of pitch conditions, you don't deserve to win; we can't absolve the bowlers of blame to place fault squarely at the feet of Taylor.

All that said, Ervine WAG.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

But did it do more harm than good? No way; 100 off 115 bringing about a slightly sub-par total. >>> NZ 230 all-out.

You and I agree that the total is sub par. You say "slightly" I say "significantly". That was a 350-400 wicket. I have criticized Latham (who slowed after being 8 off 5 balls) and Guptill as well as Taylor. I have also questioned the tactics that did not promote Ronchi in the batting order. The modern ODI game places more emphasis than ever on SR. That means if a team score is below par, and only 4 wickets were lost for the innings, the batsman can be blamed. Ross faced 120+ balls. Nearly half the innings himself at the business end of the innings.

Ross scored too slowly. 50 off 86 balls, on that pitch, was not acceptable. Given the Zimbabwe bowling attack, its almost inexcusable. Furthermore, not for 2 wickets down batting with Kane looking in fine form. His approach to that innings was all wrong. Neesham batting that way at 4 wickets down would have made more sense. Or maybe NMac at 6 wickets down. But not at 2 wickets down on that pitch. He may have thought that Kane was scoring quickly enough for the two of them given, that approach cannot be taken in ODI cricket these days, even against Zimbabwe.

Besides a loss is a loss, scoring a sub par 300 and losing is the same as scoring 230 and losing, unless the 230 involved efforts by Ronchi and Eliiot to score 365-385 on that pitch.

In the evolved and modern ODI game, "bad hundreds" exist in my opinion. Not all "100's" are good. Noone would challenge that Ross Taylor is a vastly superior batsman to Craig Ervine. But his 100 was completely shown up as result of scoring the first 50 much more quickly, giving more deliveries to "go big" at later. Even Hamilton and Kane showed him up, and they were batting at the top, not the closing.

The last 2 years has seen a dramatic increase in ODI scores. The game has evolved. 5 fielders out now at the end doesn't mean taking it easier in the middle overs.

4 wickets down posting a score, where one wicket was a run out and losing by one over, and the chasing side loses three wickets in the chase, the team batting first did not post enough runs.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Basically CaptainGrumpy is trying to say Taylor's innings was bad, when what it probably was was sub-optimal. That's all. Sure, he could've maybe scored the first 50 a bit quicker but he still made up for it anyway by ending with a 90SR. You're basically saying Taylor should've scored 140 (120) which would've been an amazing innings instead of 112 (120) which was a very good innings.

Blaming him as the reason for the loss is completely off the mark.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Basically CaptainGrumpy is trying to say Taylor's innings was bad, when what it probably was was sub-optimal. That's all. Sure, he could've maybe scored the first 50 a bit quicker but he still made up for it anyway by ending with a 90SR. You're basically saying Taylor should've scored 140 (120) which would've been an amazing innings instead of 112 (120) which was a very good innings.

Blaming him as the reason for the loss is completely off the mark.

Oh I blame the batsmen. But not KW's innings nor Elliot's really. I blame the deliveries chewed up by Ross, Guptill and Latham (after his quick start). I do blame whoever did not promote Ronchi. He should have come out ahead of possibly Elliot but definitely Neesham.

The part in bold is accurate, I would actually think about 150 (120), but it would not have been an "amazing" innings, but a good one for the pitch and given the bowlers. Or 100(90) and given time to Ronchi and Neesham to hit at the end.

 

[cnerd123]

Why are we blaming NZ players for losing instead of praising the Zim players for winning?

They've been so good these last 2 years. Have been on the verge of a win over a big ODI side for so long is so great that they finally pulled it off.

Lots of talent in countries like Zim, BD and the Associates. Losing to them shouldn't be a shock. If they get their **** tgt and the players get some discipline, experience and practice under their belt, they are seriously good limited-overs teams.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Why are we blaming NZ players for losing instead of praising the Zim players for winning? They've been so good these last 2 years. Have been on the verge of a win over a big ODI side for so long is so great that they finally pulled it off.

Lots of talent in countries like Zim, BD and the Associates. Losing to them shouldn't be a shock. If they get their **** tgt and the players get some discipline, experience and practice under their belt, they are seriously good limited-overs teams.

I praised Zimbabwe, especially Hamilton and Ervine, but NZ is a better team. A much better team. Its not like NZ lost to a blistering century by Brendon Taylor, a sparkling middle or top order collapse caused by Mustifzr or even a fine all round effort by Shakib.

NZ did not score enough runs. NZ had an average bowling attack - that was disrespectful to Zimbabwe to not play Milne. But the NZ bowlers were still better bowlers than Zimbabwe's.

NZ did not score enough runs for that pitch.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why are we blaming NZ players for losing instead of praising the Zim players for winning?

Not mutually exclusive etc.

 

[Kippax]

 

[SteveNZ]

Why are we blaming NZ players for losing instead of praising the Zim players for winning?

They've been so good these last 2 years. Have been on the verge of a win over a big ODI side for so long is so great that they finally pulled it off.

Lots of talent in countries like Zim, BD and the Associates. Losing to them shouldn't be a shock. If they get their **** tgt and the players get some discipline, experience and practice under their belt, they are seriously good limited-overs teams.

Good point well made, although a) I would say most people said well done to Zimbabwe b) it's human nature to focus on the shortcomings of your side in a loss, given you know exactly what they're capable or not capable of.

However, their bowling attack is very limited and as others have said, we should've scored much more than we did. The way they bat, they can chase 300 with limited sweat - as they showed in taking on SA at the World Cup and a lot of other times in their own backyard.

 

[straw man]

Well done Zimbabwe. I didn't see the game but it looks like Zim played well and the win meant a lot to them.

On Taylor's innings, I think it was a fair approach to just ensure we got 300 - the typical dynamic is that the better team needs to ensure they put up a performance that is merely solid, whilst the lesser team needs to take risks in order to compete. It was probably the team plan to set a score that is strong but without the risks you'd need to take for an exceptional score. That said, Taylor has had a problem with rotating the strike in ODIs for a long time... actually pretty much since ever, and it is not getting better.

Whether we want to re-evaluate the above because our second string ODI bowling is actually just not very good, is another matter. We needed a better score because our bowlers couldn't take wickets on a flat pitch. None of the figures stand out as particularly bad, but I don't look at a bowling attack of Henry, McClenaghan, NcCullum, Neesham, Sodhi and expect much of any of them, except Henry who has been disappointing lately.

Also why does Jimmy now look like a lumberjack? Anyone?

 

[Flem274*]

Eden park is a 400 v 400 ground

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Eden park is a 400 v 400 ground

I'm not certain of what you mean here, but Australia put 350 on Zimbabwe in Harare last year. South Africa chased 328 to beat Australia at Harare last year in 47 overs. The significant increase in ODI scores is a relatively recent evolution, but quite pronounced and accepted by most. But that pitch last night was run fest waiting to happen. That pitch was worth far more than 300.

 

[Dan]

You've entirely missed my point, Grumpy, to instead engage in some pedantry.

300 was under par, sure, but FMD New Zealand should be able to defend 300 against Zimbabwe, even if it is sub-par.

 

[Zinzan]

Just logged on to see who was at fault for our loss - the 5 or so bowlers who didn't take a wicket defending 300 or the guy who scored a near run a ball ton. Apparently the latter.

Catch you for the next one.

Pretty cheap & over-simplistic point tbh. I don't think CG was implying Taylor was the only player to blame for the loss, that's certainly not the way I read it.

I know it seems the easy and popular thing to oversimplify it & jump all over CG for critiquing a player who just scored a 100, the only problem is his critique of Taylor's first half of his innings is actually quite valid, especially with hindsight when you look back at how the respective teams approached their batting.

It's not 2002 anymore, where a score of 300 wins 95% of matches. That was a very good wicket (even if a little on the slow side), where batsmen could hit through the line and the outfield was incredibly fast. In hindsight it was probably a 320-330 par pitch. Therefore it's fair to say there was a lack of urgency in NZ's innings (particular from Taylor) after he and Williamson they did well to weather the early storm, which admittedly needed to be done. This doesn't mean the other NZ batsmen who failed and the bowlers who were loose shouldn't receive criticism either, but your reply seems to suggest that because Taylor scored a hundred, he should be immune from any criticism at all, even though anyone who watched the innings could see he was sucking up far too many dot balls.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll see more urgency in the batting in the next game, particularly if NZ bat first.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Haven't the ICC fiddled around with the ODI rules again since the world cup? I don't think that was a 400 run wicket. I only watched the NZ batting effort, but every batsman seemed to struggle with their timing initially - certainly from the openers down to Taylor and Elliott mistimed a couple when he first came in. Disciplined, accurate bowling was given a fair reward - perhaps the NZ batsmen should have been more willing to use their feet against the slower bowlers but the only bowlers who were routinely dispatched were those who lost their length regularly (Mpofu being the worst offender here with his smorgasbord of wide long-hops).

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

You've entirely missed my point, Grumpy, to instead engage in some pedantry.

You will need to quote where I have engaged on some "pedantry" but I have not missed your point. I just disagree with it.

300 was under par, sure, but FMD New Zealand should be able to defend 300 against Zimbabwe, even if it is sub-par.

We both agree that 300 was under par, but why should NZ bowlers automatically be expected to defend 300 on that pitch? Milne was left out, that was disrespectful to Zimbabwe, but the Zimbo batsman, on a great batting pitch, played NZ bowler's well. The NZ bowlers were not horrible, we've seen much worse bowling in England this year, they just didn't have enough runs on the board in my opinion.

I thought NZ bowlers bowled better than Zimbabwe's bowlers. I don't blame the bowlers at all. With all due respect, in my opinion both team's bowlers kept the opposition below a par score on that pitch, therefore I blame NZ's batting.

With further respect, the thinking that the bowlers should restrict Zimbabwe from chasing a sub par total is disrepectful towards Zimbabwe's batting as well as being selfish on the part of NZ batsmen against NZ's bowlers as they should be looking to maximise run scoring to make the chances of a win ever more likely. A point I made earlier.

 

[Zinzan]

And there it is, misrepresentation of the argument an an attempt to score points. No one is saying that the bowlers didn't let the team down, or that Taylor was even primarily responsible for the loss. But just because Taylor made hay in the final 10 overs doesn't mean that he should get a free pass for striking at 50 throughout the first half of his innings. That isn't good enough, and I don't buy the excuse that the pitch was sticky. KW had no problems accumulating at a strike rate of around 80 throughout most of his innings, and Taylor was getting a regular stream of bad balls that he should've put away but kept slapping to fielders instead. I'm pleased that he got a hundred, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a very flawed innings and one that acted as a hand-break on NZ's progress as we should've been looking to accelerate through those middle overs.

Yeah, this.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Except this "KW had no problems accumulating at a strike rate of around 80 throughout most of his innings" is a complete fallacy.

Williamson had massive issues early in his innings. He was still on 0 after what, 15 balls?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Except this "KW had no problems accumulating at a strike rate of around 80 throughout most of his innings" is a complete fallacy.

Williamson had massive issues early in his innings. He was still on 0 after what, 15 balls?

He was in the 20's off 40's but got to 50 off 64 and continue from there to decrease the gap between balls faced and runs scored. So Bahnz is not fallacious in my view.